-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed assessment objectives are appropriate for AS and A level mathematics and further mathematics?
Agree
The changes to the assessment objectives, particularly moving reference to proof and notation to AO2 are welcomed.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed weightings of the assessment objectives are appropriate for AS mathematics?
Agree
We welcome the increased proportion of AO1 marks and think 60% is ‘about right’. Allowing ±2% on all three AOs seems disproportionate and we would urge consideration of ±4% for AO1. We note the italicised comments in AO2 and AO3 and suggest that these proposals are implemented in ways that do not restrict access to AO1 marks or increase the demand of papers.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed weightings of the assessment objectives are appropriate for A level mathematics?
Agree
We welcome the increased proportion of AO1 marks and think 50% is ‘about right’. We note the italicised comments in AO2 and AO3 and suggest that these proposals are implemented in ways that do not restrict access to AO1 marks or increase the demand of papers.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed weightings of the assessment objectives are appropriate for AS further mathematics?
Agree
We welcome the increased proportion of AO1 marks and think 60% is ‘about right’. We note the italicised comments in AO2 and AO3 and suggest that these proposals are implemented in ways that do not restrict access to AO1 marks or increase the demand of papers.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed weightings of the assessment objectives are appropriate for A level further mathematics?
Agree
We welcome the increased proportion of AO1 marks and think 50% is ‘about right’. We think defining minimum proportions for AO2 and AO3 in further mathematics will allow awarding organisations to devise assessments appropriate to the non-core material. We would urge consideration of ±4% for AO1. We note the italicised comments in AO2 and AO3 and suggest that these proposals are implemented in ways that do not restrict access to AO1 marks or increase the demand of papers.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should introduce a Condition which requires exam boards to comply with the relevant subject content – including the two proposed new appendices – and assessment objectives?
Strongly agree
It is essential that awarding organisations comply with the subject content and assessment objectives. It is important that the Overarching Themes (articulated in AO2 and AO3) permeate the assessment for all candidates.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should introduce guidance which clarifies that awarding organisations should explain and justify in their assessment strategies how their qualification design reflects the ‘Overarching themes’ and ‘Use of technology’ sections of the subject content?
Strongly agree
It is essential that awarding organisations explain and justify their assessment strategies in respect of the Overarching Themes and Use of Technology. They need to be required to explain how they will ensure that all candidates are assessed across the entire content including the Overarching Themes.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should introduce guidance which clarifies how awarding organisations should interpret our assessment objectives?
Agree
The clarification around interpretation of the assessment objectives seems helpful in ensuring comparable assessments from the various awarding organisations. The suggested weightings for modelling (40%) within the clarification for AO3 may be problematic for further mathematics, particularly for the assessment of the non-core material.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should allow the first exams for new mathematics A levels in summer 2018 (at the end of the first year of teaching)?
Strongly agree
The future of further mathematics is somewhat precarious given the move to linear assessment. Anything that will help to maintain participation should be done. Given that current and future cohorts will have the opportunity to take A level mathematics after one year of study, it would be very unfair to not allow this to happen for just one cohort. It may be that some centres will enter students for both the legacy and new A levels in mathematics if this is allowed which may provide some valuable information about comparability.
We think it may prove difficult to have students take the legacy A level in mathematics and then move to the new A level in further mathematics. This is because the new mathematics and further mathematics have a much greater emphasis on problem solving and reasoning and use of technology, and the approach to statistics is very different.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to regulating the sampling of subject content in AS and A level mathematics?
Agree
It is important that exams in mathematics do not become predictable. Consequently, awarding organisations must have a well-designed robust strategy for managing the sampling of content to ensure comparability year- on-year.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to regulating the use and assessment of large data sets in AS and A level mathematics?
Strongly disagree
We have grave concerns about the use of pre-release large data sets in A level mathematics. Whilst we believe it is very important that statistics in A level mathematics shifts to include a much greater emphasis on working with real data and the interpretation of statistics, we are not convinced that large data sets is the way to do this.
We note that the A level working group failed to give any examples of either suitable data sets or prototype assessment items. This suggests that it is not possible to devise plausible assessments. In which case this is a risk to valid and reliable assessment and we recommend that Ofqual advises DfE that changes are needed to the A level mathematics content.
In addition, current teachers of statistics will not be familiar with the use of large data sets to teach statistics and will need considerable support to do so.
-
To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to regulating non-core content in AS and A level further mathematics?
Agree
It is essential that there is comparability of demand across the different aspects of non-core further mathematics within an awarding organisation’s specification. Also for a given aspect of non-core mathematics there needs to be comparability across the awarding organisations.
-
Do you have any comments on our proposed Conditions and requirements for AS and A level mathematics?
Yes
We would like to see included in the conditions something about assessment of all AOs for all candidates. Please note our concerns about pre-release large data sets.
-
Do you have any comments on our proposed Conditions and requirements for AS and A level further mathematics?
Yes
We agree with the expectation that routes through the qualification are of comparable demand.
-
Do you have any comments on our proposed guidance for AS and A level mathematics?
Yes
We note the italicised comments in AO2 and AO3 and suggest that these proposals are implemented in ways that do not restrict access to AO1 marks or increase the demand of papers. Please note our concerns about prerelease large data sets.
-
Do you have any comments on our proposed guidance for AS and A level further mathematics?
Yes
We note the italicised comments in AO2 and AO3 and suggest that these proposals are implemented in ways that do not restrict access to AO1 marks or increase the demand of papers. The suggested weightings for modelling (40%) within the clarification for AO3 may be problematic, particularly for the assessment of the non-core material.
-
Do you have any comments on DfE’s proposed new appendices to the subject content for mathematics and further mathematics?
Yes
Please note there are errors in the notation: 3.7 ‘the non-negative square root’ so that Vo is defined; 3.9 0!=1 needs to be included in the definition of n!; 10.1 ro is the angular speed, not the angular frequency. We suggest that 1.15 might be better described as ‘positive integers and zero’.
-
We have not identified any ways in which the proposals for AS and A level mathematics and further mathematics would impact (positively or negatively) on persons who share a protected characteristic.31 Are there any potential impacts we have not identified?
No
-
Are there any additional steps we could take to mitigate any negative impact resulting from these proposals on persons who share a protected characteristic?
No
-
Have you any other comments on the impacts of the proposals on students who share a protected characteristic?
No
Schools and Further Education Committee
5 January 2016
